Tripura High Court
Sri Chitta Ranjan Dasgupta vs The State Of Tripura on 23 February, 2017
Author: S.C. Das
Bench: S.C. Das
1
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Sri Chitta Ranjan Dasgupta,
S/o. Sri Kamal Ranjan Das Gupta,
Resident of Chitta Ranjan Road,
P.O. Agartala College, PIN-799004,
P.S., East Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
BY ADVOCATES :
Mr.P.Roy Barman,
Mr.Samarjit Bhattacharjee,
- Vs -
RESPONDENTS :
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799006.
2. Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board, (to be represented by the Chairman, Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board, Colonel Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001.
3. The Executive Officer, Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board, Colonel Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001.
4. The Commissioner/Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799006.
WP(C) No.273 of 2014 Page 1 of 6 2
5. The Director, Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799006.
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A. Mr.P.Dutta, BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. DAS Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & order : 23.02.2017.
Whether Fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and learned counsel, Mr. P. Dutta for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Organizer (Extension) under respondent No.2 and was entitled to get medical reimbursement, a fact, not in dispute. He was posted at Kumarghat. His wife and other family members, as stated, living at Agartala. His wife had fallen ill on 11.09.2013 with abnormal abdominal pain and was rushed to IGM Hospital, Agartala on 12.09.2013. According to the petitioner, she was discharged from the hospital with a direction to undergo ultra sonography of the abdomen and that was done on 14.09.2013, when it was found WP(C) No.273 of 2014 Page 2 of 6 3 that she was suffering from abdominal pain due to Gall bladder stone, medically called Cholelithiasis.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was advised removal of the Gall bladder stone, but at that point of time laparoscopic surgery was not available at IGM Hospital and AGMC & GBP Hospital. Such surgery through laparoscopy was available only in ILS Hospital. The wife of the petitioner went to ILS Hospital on 23.12.2013 and laparoscopic surgery was done with removal of Gall bladder stone and she was discharged on 25.12.2013.
4. The petitioner being entitled to the medical reimbursement submitted the medical bill to respondent No.3 for an amount of Rs.29,000/-. The payment of the bill was denied on the ground that she was not referred by the standing Medical Board of the State Government.
5. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has submitted that ILS Hospital is a referral Hospital as recognized by the Government of Tripura, but the petitioner's bill has not been reimbursed.
6. Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 by filing counter affidavit contended that the petitioner had enough scope to get a reference from the Medical Board for laparoscopic treatment of his wife at ILS Hospital, but that was not done. At that point of time the ILS Hospital was not recognized as a referral hospital, but for some special diseases the reimbursement of the cost of medical treatment was allowed as per Order dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure- WP(C) No.273 of 2014 Page 3 of 6 4 1 to the counter affidavit of the State respondents). Since the case of the petitioner does not come within the purview of those diseases mentioned in the said Order of the Health and Family Welfare Department, the petitioner was not entitled to get medical reimbursement for the treatment of his wife as claimed.
7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that no document has been filed in respect of the treatment at IGM Hospital. It is also stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 follow the State Government's guidelines and since the petitioner's case was not referred by the standing Medical Board for the treatment of his wife in the ILS Hospital, the medical reimbursement was denied.
8. Every citizen is entitled to get treatment availing latest scientific development in respect of the concerned treatment which is within the reach. If for such a Gall bladder stone removal someone chooses to go to a foreign country for treatment, definitely that cannot be entertained. But here the question is that the wife of the petitioner has chosen for laparoscopic surgery for removal of her Gall bladder stone, which is no doubt an advance scientific process of surgery than that of the earlier method of surgery by way of opening the abdomen. The petitioner obtained information from IGM and AGMC & GBP Hospital through RTI that laparoscopic surgery was not available at that point of time.
9. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that Annexure-5 is not clear that laparoscopic surgery was not available at AGMC & GBP Hospital at that WP(C) No.273 of 2014 Page 4 of 6 5 particular point of time. Annexure-5 contains the following information:
" ..... ..... It is reported by the I/C HOD, Deptt. Of Surgery, AGMC & GBPH that at present this procedure is temporarily stopped due to shortage of hand instruments but expected to start again shortly after procurement of these instruments."
10. According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it was temporarily not available in AGMC & GBP Hospital, but it is not clear that on the date of alleged surgery of the petitioner, which was done in between 23.12.2013 and 25.12.2013 whether it was available at AGMC & GBP Hospital or not?
11. If that sort of surgery was available in the Government Hospital, the petitioner would not go to the ILS Hospital for treatment of his wife, i.e., laparoscopic surgery for removal of Gall bladder stone. The cost of the treatment involved was only Rs.29,000/- for which the bill has been submitted. It was not a serious disease as has been explained in Order dated 19.09.2013, but when a person suffered Gall bladder pain, definitely the sufferer of the pain will consider to have the treatment immediately. But it is an accepted position that surgery is done after subsiding the pain and so, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no scope to take a referral from the standing Medical Board. She fell ill on 12.09.2013 and the treatment was done on 23.12.2013, it means, she had about 3 months' time for obtaining a reference.
WP(C) No.273 of 2014 Page 5 of 6 6
12. The petitioner in his writ petition stated that he was staying away from the house and therefore, could not approach the Medical Board for a reference. His wife was in bedridden condition and, therefore, could not do so. The statement though is supported by affidavit, but cannot by itself be said that it is sufficient to hold that the petitioner's wife had no scope to get a reference.
13. Be that as it may, ILS Hospital has become a referral Hospital by now. The medical reimbursement for the treatment at ILS Hospital is now available. The petitioner was treated in 2013. There is no case that no such treatment was undertaken and that any abnormal bill was raised. So, in my considered opinion, the respondents shall grant the medical reimbursement to the petitioner for the treatment of his wife since the petitioner is otherwise entitled to get the medical reimbursement.
14. Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to allow the medical reimbursement bill presented by the petitioner for the treatment of his wife at ILS Hospital within sixty days from today.
15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE WP(C) No.273 of 2014 Page 6 of 6